Carriers

and I’m not sure anyone is reading this

I read this and i am sure about 15 others are as well. You would be surprised.

I think if you make the carrier at 18, with a 10 fighter and 11 Tac bomber… the cost of these three may tip the balance to other naval combination’s. This is a hike of 5 basis points and your attack is the same because the carrier dropped to Zero. Your spending 5 extra IPC to get one hit that is really an “emergency hit” because one hit makes the carrier useless, so its not really a benefit. I would make a house rule that the planes can fly more than one space away to save themselves in order to make use of the so called “free hit”. Since thats not the case in OOB i can’t see the carrier moving up in cost.

@Veqryn:

well, 14 or 15 ipcs is even better in my mind, so i agree with that IL,
i just think that Larry won’t do it, since he has said it will cost 18, have 2 hitpoints, can’t land planes if hit

Veqryn
When did Larry say the cost of a carrier is going to $18. I don’t remember seeing it in his posts. I have even done a search.
Can anyone clear this up for me.  :?
Krieg?

I’m still liking the 1-1-2-(whatever the cost will be). And if the game is played accurately, then super stacks should not happen, with the game board being very large there should be lots of room to maneuver so if all of your eggs are in one basket the enemy will find it quite easy to outflank you with smaller groups. But there should be groups of naval units because one carrier all by itself without planes (even with planes!) should be suicide, in past games that was ok because at three or less you were going to at least take one of the opponent’s units with you. I just want to see the best strategy being used for best gameplay as well, which is using naval groups or task forces but super stacking should be made obsolete by the size of the board. What I meant earlier by massing units for example is like having a carrier with planes and two destroyers or a battleship, two carriers and two submarines, not 8 subs, 7 destroyers and 3 carriers fully stocked! Again though, the size of the board should negate super stacks, at least for AAP40. And AAE40 should not happen either because of the need for most units to be land based units.

I think the nature of naval combat is going to steer towards stacks.  There were reasons task groups were spread out historically, but these reasons can not be captured on a game where everyone sees all the pieces.  In naval warfare, you have to avoid the decisive engagement that can go against you.  One way to do this is to make sure you have the biggest dog on the block.

You all forget an important point about why the carriers really should cost 18. Remember that airports are introduced, making floating and mobile airports even more powerful and useful. Do you want to build a static airport, or are the money better invested in a floating one? All the choices we get. :)

And one more thing; I hope and think indeed the Germany 1st turn carrier build isn’t a good idea anymore……

Yeah…from what I heard you cant deploy planes on a carrier anymore you have to start them out from an airfeild.

With the new size of the Pacific map it will be impossible to cover every part of the gameboard with one huge force, the size will force battlegroups instead of one giant stack.

@Andy_Dandy:

You all forget an important point about why the carriers really should cost 18. Remember that airports are introduced, making floating and mobile airports even more powerful and useful. Do you want to build a static airport, or are the money better invested in a floating one? All the choices we get. :)

Andy I would think the other way on this. An island with an airbase and a port will be a powerful weapon. You will be able to have multiple air units and many more of them. You also won’t have to worry about where to land because you got dinged. It will also def your fleet just like it was a carrier. All the def capabilities of these island bases are still not known. I just remember in revised when America got the island bases NA it was pretty cool, and it didn’t have any of this other stuff. Don’t get me wrong I will still buy carriers, for mobility, but I wouldn’t think that should raise the price because they could always move. If anything the second hit that it gets is going to cause it to lose some of its mobility as it will be running back to port all the time.

How could running back to port be worse than being sunk?

I also think that the island base unfortunately may promote super stacks. Think about it. Japan starts toward the US with a rather large fleet. The US has a medium size fleet it moves to Hawaii. Japan also brings in a secondary fleet to help from the Solomons. The US builds 3 or 4 fighters on west coast. Japan inches closer for the kill. US flies its fighters to Hawaii (island base) Now your at a stand off as neither power has an advantage. Before you had to have multiple carriers to protect your fleet, now you can just move to safety and bring in more planes. I don’t know does an air base have a limit to how many air units it can hold. Its just like trying to take Moscow and those damn Brits keep flying fighters over.

What advantage does an airbase give you in the game? We were already allowed to land anywhere.

@Brain:

How could running back to port be worse than being sunk?

I didn’t say it would be worse then getting sunk. I’m saying if you choose to take the hit it will limit your defenses and most likely force you to retreat. This would surely hamper your mobility. It could also cost you plane.
@Brain:

What advantage does an airbase give you in the game? We were already allowed to land anywhere.

Now if you land on an island w/airbase any of the ftr & tac bmr on that island can def the surrounding sz just like they were on a carrier.

Thanks for the answer on the airbase a +1 to you.

But a mobility problem is better than no ship because it is sunk.

I still don’t think super stacks will be viable. If Japan takes all of her ships over to the Hawaiian islands then that will leave room for ANZAC to come from the South. I really think the board will be too big for a stalemate to occur.

Lulz…Anzac only makes 9 IPC in this game to start out with! Thats ONE destroyer a turn! If I was japan I wouldnt feel threatened by such a small force.

@Brain:

Thanks for the answer on the airbase a +1 to you.
But a mobility problem is better than no ship because it is sunk.

I agree but I just wanted to point out that it will be bitter/sweet

@maverick_76:

I still don’t think super stacks will be viable. If Japan takes all of her ships over to the Hawaiian islands then that will leave room for ANZAC to come from the South. I really think the board will be too big for a stalemate to occur.

I think your right, there will be many more smaller sea battles at the same time because of the larger spaces and more nations. I also think you have the potential for smaller fleets and a lot of air units coming together at these island bases to set up def as the enemy converges its many resources to the same area. Hopefully NO’s and convoy’s will help keep fleets a little spread out. After all its all about the green$$$

There arent any NO’s in this game…just the global game

More sea zones also means it will take more turns to cross the ocean.

Good, the Pacific is a massive beast.